No Platforming?

SteveG wrote: Easy Money wrote: SteveG wrote: Let's make it even simpler. I'll get off my American Civil Liberties Union soapbox and give you my own personal views on censorship, which you've swayed from. Perhaps because your argument was not persuasive.   Hate speech is a symptom of it's underlying cause which is hatred. Censorship does nothing to abolish hatred. If anything, it drives it underground. I would much rather know who my enemies are then guess who they are. As far I'm concerned every bigot in America should have a megaphone. If you think that their censorship will somehow protect you then you're mistaken. Hatred knows how to be covert and violent acts will still go on.   In the era of Trump it has come out of it's hiding place and is exposed. I'm grateful for that. If you woukd like to see it buried again and still smoldering, that will happen when Trump's run is over. But the hatred is not gone. Your fear is not gone. Nothing will have changed. The hatred will remain, be frustrated and grow. I don't want to bury anything, I just want police protection for my free speech just like the nazis get, thats only fair. Excellent. I'll take that as a vote for  free speech. (With caveats, off course.)

Do you think I deserve police protection for my free speech when I head to the local redneck bar to give my opinion about hollywood donald?

^ Of course not.
The police will not protect my free speech, and they shouldn't, but they have protected the klan.
This doesn't seem fair. Let the klan deal with the outcome of their free speech just as i have to.
That would be fair and that would be equal freedom for everyone.

SteveG wrote: Logan wrote: Speaking of Islam and free speech, a topic I've been quite vocal about in the past here, of course at this site we do have proscribed limits on our free speech -- see Site rules and guidelines Note: "...Profanity - the deliberate denigration of another person's belief, will not be tolerated. Our membership is global, and thus represents a host of spiritual and religious beliefs. Given this, profanity is tantamount to personal attack (see next entry). Likewise, there is no place in this forum for bigotry (this includes religious bigotry, racism, and sexual discrimination) which are also considered to be personal attacks. We are committed to not censoring messages or opinions, but this is a moderated forum. We simply want to maintain the spirit of an open, interactive discussion without offending any of the participants." This can be hard to navigate. I like to say feel free to speak your mind, but mind your speech. I have been critical of Islam, Imams and schools of thought, the practices and intolerance in Islamic countries, particular sects of Islam (especially Salafism and Wahhabism and the Shi'ah form of people like the Ayatollah Khomeini), as well as religious texts (I have read a translation of the Qur'an and Sunnah --- some would say you need to read that in Arabic), and not that it should matter, but various of my best friends grew in Moslem households (Persians who fled the Iranian/ Islamic revolution). I definitely have had concerns with Islamism, and particularly after the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the Nov. 2015 Paris attacks, and the rise of IS, I became more concerned still. Having expressed my concerns, despite being quite nuanced, I thought, I have been called an Islamophobe and that I was being racist, and all that by non-Moslems who seemed quite ignorant about what I was talking about. Islam isn't a race, and those people haven't the expertise or knowledge of my psyche to claim a phobia.   It seemed a knee-jerk reaction rather than people wishing to discuss such things rationally in good faith (and commonly such people have not done much research of their own). I'm open to different perspectives, would like to learn more, and hold no idea with absolute certainty. Criticism of Islam has seemed quite a taboo subject in a way that criticism of Christianity, Scientology or the teachings of Ti and Do haven't. I can understand that. I have been critical of all of those, and have sometimes rather felt, a la Hitchens, that "religion poisons everything" even if that seems more of a line to sell books. If talking phobias, I do think such diagnoses and labeling is better left to psychologists (it's an irrational fear, and as corollary, hatred, that cause the phobe psychological distress). I would rather see less niqabs/ burqas when I go grocery shopping as I do, and I have discomfort with such a tradition, and would rather not see as much religious symbolism as I do where I live. I do have some fear of religion, especially conservative/orthodox/ fundamentalist forms. my wife was Pentecostal, and her church scared me. The speaking in tongues made me really uneasy. Maybe with me it does approach a sort of religious phobia, but then I could say I have had various phobias. Should I be stigmatised for it? Should I be more tolerant of intolerant people? Bigotry would be the better terms for what people mean most of the time, although there are truly Islamophobic individuals, as there are true coulrophobes etc. Such terminology, though, along with terms such as Islamophilia are often used to shut down conversation. In Canada, we had an anti-Islamophobia motion put forward by Liberal MP Irqa Khalid despite already having hate speech laws. I suggested to our government that they should consult with psychologists/ psychiatrists to look into how much of this is a genuine clinical phobia and consider potential treatment options. My problem with such terms partially comes from stigmatising those who genuinely suffer form phobias. Perhaps partially due to my time working with people who have cognitive impairment/ intellectual disabilities, I also dislike it when people use "retard" as an insult. I think that all religions should be open to criticism and even ridicule, and I do believe in a general right to offend. I believe in freedom of religion, but with limitations, and part of that is freedom from religion, just as I believe in free speech with certain limitations. I commonly am not that comfortable with ridicule actually, and I tend to dislike sarcasm (I like a certain warmth and good-natured humour in the conversation). I do wish we could live in a world where we could try to act in a more respectful, and definitely rational, manner to each other while not necessarily respecting someone's ideas. Ideally speech would not to be shut down and people would argue rationally while really considering other positions. Sorry for the rambling digression. If the student union at the university I do work for wanted an Anjem Choudary-type figure to give a speech, I'd want to go and ask questions, but my biggest concern would be security. Saying things against terrorism is sticky due to the terrorist's connection with their religions. I'm afraid the best we can do on occasion is tread carefully and hope we don't overstep our bounds.

Indeed, and if we overstep our bounds just hope there is no explosive "Kaboom!" land-mine style as a consequence. The threat of terrorism can be quite an effective means to silence the critics. "Death to the blasphemer!"

Of course one also does have to worry about reprisals against a greater Moslem community by the kafir/kuffar (non-moslems) after an Islamic terrorist attack, and so speech should be moderated particularly when tensions are high.

What I found so strange is that non-Moslems who knew so little about Islam were so quick to defend it and proclaim it a religion of peace after the latest attacks by certain adherents (who according to many real Moslems, but also those non-Moslems that are ignorant about the teachings, don't understand what Islam really is). There is no one Islam, I'd say, as there is no one Christianity. Islam means surrender or submission -- it's then about surrendering your will to Allah and following the five main Pillars of Islam. The peace can be seen to come from within following internal jihad, but also after external jihad (religious war) when all have surrendered that will and obey the commands, peace prevails. That oversimplifies things, mind you.

I've often noticed that it's the most orthodox who often seem the most insecure when it comes to hearing any criticism of their beliefs, or anyone questioning those beliefs. I believe that a well-founded belief should stand up to scrutiny. With religious aspects, it's faith or nothing, as so many religious claims and dogma can't be verified to a scientific degree. I couldn't imagine the anger one sees from certain religious communities when their beliefs are ridiculed coming form , say a community of Humanists after being insulted about their lack of faith.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion" (Steven Weinberg).

Or something like religion I'd say, such an nationalism, which is like a state religion, etc. Not all religions need a belief in a supernatural power per se.

^ Would there have been the proper clarity had it been written as "...shouldn't you also have the right to protection if you go protesting?" That's how I would have interpreted it.   It seemed a pretty common informal way of writing that in my experience, so much so that I wouldn't have thought twice about it unless I was called on to edit it -- in which case I would seek clarification before making any changes.

Edited by Logan - March 05 2020 at 13:32

^ I'm easily foolish enough to do much worse and have done so.
As far as protests go, I was at a protest, but the police didn't protect me, they tried to arrest me, but I out ran them. I guess I was not following correct protocol there either, I was supposed to let them arrest me. I guess I missed out on a trip to jail because I ignored the rules. Shame on me.

All the same, I do like the ACLU and generally support them even if I don't agree with who they are protecting. I guess I just like seeing nazis and klan get punched in the face, I know that's not politically correct, but there is a lot of personal history there.

Edited by Easy Money - March 05 2020 at 20:59

^^^ If that's the consensus, then yes it should be locked to preserve the positive spirit of the community. It's a shame free speech is such a divisive issue.

Easy Money wrote: ^ I'm easily foolish enough to do much worse and have done so. As far as protests go, I was at a protest, but the police didn't protect me, they tried to arrest me, but I out ran them. I guess I was not following correct protocol there either, I was supposed to let them arrest me. I guess I missed out on a trip to jail because I ignored the rules. Shame on me. All the same, I do like the ACLU and generally support them even if I don't agree with who they are protecting. I guess I just like seeing nazis and klan get punched in the face, I know that's not politically correct, but there is a lot of personal history there.

I took your example of putting yourself in harm's way as purely hypothetical, so you're only hypothetically foolish, not so in reality.

even 5-10 years ago the biggest LARPERs weren't guessing it would have been corporations, not governments, limiting their speech